Is Litespeed faster than Apache?

Is Litespeed faster than Apache?
I see many people saying Litespeed is faster than Apache, however have you ever thought why does a business with millions of dollars in transaction per month depend on Apache instead of Litespeed? Do they want to save the few bucks in the cost of the license?

After doing a lot of research we have come to a conclusion that Litespeed causes more load on the hard disk on a highly loaded server. Our testing server was a 1 X L5410 server with processor capacity of 4 X 2.33GHz with cPanel. The box had 6 gigs of RAM. While using Litespeed the RAM usage was nearly 25-27% most of the times. While it was on Apache with our custom settings the RAM usage was between 17% and 57%, the average been around 24% with a very rare rise up to above 50%. Coming to the CPU usage, it has been found that Litespeed causes much more load on the processor in delivering many PHP pages. Though the Litespeed performed slighlty better on normal static pages however Apache was much better at delivering the dynamic sites.

Webserver Details:
Apache 2.2.11 with our custom settings
Litespeed 4 Ent



Source: http://www.webthosting.com/hosting/announcements/1/WebT-Hosting-appoints-Apache-specialists.html

Want Apache but can not compromise speed? To celebrate our new reach we are providing 50% discount on your initial payment on all shared and reseller hosting plans. To claim your 50% off open a sales ticket with your order number and this URL and we will take off 50% off your initial invoice.

For details on the plans please visit www.webthosting.com

 

Actually i still think litespeed is faster based on personal use in the past maybe it gives more load i havent actually checked that it seems it is faster.. Also the fact that even wordpress uses Litespeed should be taken into consideration coz i am sure they recieve large number of hits than normal sites

 

Also business on millions of dollars depend on Apache. With Litespeed you have a peace of mind, but if you can monitor and manage your server proactively, set the correct rules/settings as per your usage Apache is better way.... Though Litespeed is a good option for many who want to cut off the cost of monitoring proactively a webserver

 

Agreed

The Fact is

Apache is Good if its properly configured and tweaked as per server

And

Litespeed is good since its tweaked and configured to its best already

 

Tweaked Apache are more fast than LiteSpeed for my personal test and experience, however litespeed for 1 site VPS, can be useful.

 

I agree with you.
Yes, of course LiteSpeed is faster than Apache, but LiteSpeed only faster on certain things. Some people said, LiteSpeed isn't SEO friendly and LiteSpeed can caused server load sometimes, is that true?

 

It actually depends on your server load - Litespeed is normally used on a dedicated server for a single web page - reason being - is at a certain point (so many people using litespeed on the same server) it will begin to consume more cpu then apache itself would.

If you truly want to get the full potential from litespeed, you'll have to only run one site off your dedi, otherwise after the (guesstimation) 10th client it will start to bog down the cpu more then apache would.

 

The test was done on a highly loaded server where Litespeed caused more load to the CPU than apache.

 

i would say personally that litespeed is faster than apache cause forums and other stuff would load way faster and many clients enjoyed it being faster as well as that it had its on way of being adjusted and was not affecting uptime when it had to restarted for changes.

 

i have been trying litespeed past 30 days it has been very good till now , only issue i found which they are already in way to solve is upload progress bar their 4.1 version supports it too , upto reliability since apache is widely used tested and open source many ppl use it , tweaking apache is not a ball in everyones hand i tried different management guys but failed at last switched to litespeed and till now results are good

 

From what I have seen, Litespeed is always faster, and does not create a strain on the disks. However, we still stick with Apache, as it's proven! Litespeed....maybe in a few years.

 

All webserver software is good for its own purpose. IIS is good for ASP/APS.net, Apache and litespeed are good for different things.

 

I do see clearly the diff between LiteSpeed and Apache.. LiteSpeed is way much better at page load it doesnt matter if you use static or dynamic page..

Obviously the dont care about budget but did they ever try to use LiteSpeed rather than Apache? Did Microsoft use Apache? ^^ If you ask me between which one is mostly used by large company to deliver thier page you should have known the answer clearly... its IIS is thier choice.. Now if you wanna make a question out of it. Does PHP load faster than ASP?

I dont see any significat increase on my RAM or CPU load on litespeed powered VPS instead it give me a lots of way much faster than tweaked apache in term of page load.. On a fast connection you wont see a diff.. open your torrent and start mass dloading something and try opening a web with litespeed and compare it with tweaked apache.. ^^ just my 2 cent...

 

Litespeed may boast it's statistical advantages in a perfect environment but I have been trying lite speed with one of my basic html/javascript sites for the past couple of months and I would say page load times would vary to be minimally quicker at best on some loads to showing no noticeable difference.

After discontinuing the litespeed hosting and going back to apache I was impressed to see it loading clearly quicker on the apache server of the same specs.

At the end of the day it's not a perfect world for comparison as you need to take into account the physical server specs, resource usage, network traffic & many other issues that are involved.

 

LiteSpeed servers come with some default and easy to use graphical interface settings. The same settings can be applied to Apache but ofcourse not in a graphical web interface.

 

but iam nginx boy,i love that it more more power than both i think so

 

i have tried nginx yes is aw large drop in cpu usage it is very good for static pages where direct files are proxied skipping apache but nginx doesnt support some modules like upload bars etc , even once i got my vbulletin sites messed because of nginx lol all sites nearly 16 on that server using VB got issue each and every visitor new or old was being proxied by nginx got server ip as their ip no one was able to login site until i disable strike system of VB from phpmyadmin

 

bentink,

What can you do to hasten the restoration of my clients' accounts? Instead of wasting your time here comparing Litespeed and Apache, why don't you "work" on my ticket. I haven't updated it as you have instructed as I am afraid it will "go down the queue" again and wait another more weeks before it is attended.

I hope you have a good explanation why for over 2 days (since your last reply on my ticket that you are going to copy the backup files on my account's folder) you were not able to finish copying the backup files?

 

mod_rpaf2 has been installed in your server?

 

I believe they're using Lighttpd, not Litespeed

Lighttpd - lighttpd.net
Litespeed - litespeedtech.com

I'm sitting here on Barry's blog looking for a specific mention but all I can find is talk about the caching setup

barry.wordpress.com